R v Edwards - [2000] QCA 508

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Edwards & Ors [2000] QCA 508

PARTIES:
R

v

EDWARDS, Leslie Arthur
(appellant)
HEFEREN, Stephen Patrick
(appellant)
GEORGIOU, Liozos
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 148 of 2000
CA No 159 of 2000
CA No 168 of 2000
SC No 92 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 14 December 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 24 November 2000

JUDGE: de Jersey CJ, Williams and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER: In each appeal, quash the conviction and order retrial.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY - OTHER CASES - all appellants convicted of murder - where certain irregularities occurred in relation to jury - whether trial judge erred in refusing to discharge jury - where one of jurors suffered personal problems during trial and absented himself from the group after jury retired, later returning to continue deliberations – where juror had lengthy conversations with police officers, but there was no evidence that he had discussed the jury’s deliberations with anyone

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE - PARTICULAR MATTERS – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS - DISCHARGE OF JURY – construction of s 53 Jury Act 1995 - whether trial judge applied correct test in determining whether or not to discharge jury - trial judge gave insufficient regard to the perception of prejudice to a fair trial - test is whether the irregularities appeared to give rise to a reasonable suspicion about the fairness of the trial and that includes considering whether the public confidence in the proper administration of criminal justice could be preserved if the convictions were allowed to stand in the light of the irregularities

Criminal Code (Qld), s 621, s 622

Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 53, s 54, s 56, s 57

R v Chaouk (1986) VR 707, considered
R v Davies (1991) 53 A Crim R 122, considered
R v Fielding [1993] 1 Qd R 192, considered
R v Jacksonand Le Gros [1995] 1 Qd R 547, considered
R v Ketheridge (1915) 1 KB 467, cited
Webb and Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, discussed

COUNSEL: TD Martin SC for appellant Edwards
GP Long for appellant Heferen
P Callaghan for appellant Georgiou
D Meredith for respondent

SOLICITORS: Robertson O’Gorman for appellant Edwards
Legal Aid Office (Queensland) for appellant Heferen
Legal Aid Office (Queensland) for appellant Georgiou
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Williams J. I agree with the orders His Honour proposes and with his reasons. I add these observations concerning the test for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2000] QCA 508
Case: [2000] QCA 508
Decision Date: 14 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edwards involved an appeal by the appellants who had been convicted of murder. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in his refusal to discharge the jury due to certain irregularities during the trial. One juror had experienced personal issues, absented himself from the jury group after they had retired to deliberate, and later returned. During his absence, he engaged in lengthy conversations with police officers, although there was no evidence to suggest he had discussed the jury's deliberations with anyone.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge correctly applied the legal test set out in section 53 of the Jury Act 1995 when deciding whether to discharge the jury. The primary consideration was whether the irregularities gave rise to a reasonable suspicion about the fairness of the trial. The court held that the trial judge failed to sufficiently consider the potential prejudice to a fair trial and did not adequately address whether the public confidence in the administration of criminal justice could be preserved if the convictions were allowed to stand.

Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's decision was flawed and quashed the convictions of all appellants. It ordered that a retrial be conducted, reflecting the necessity to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice process and ensure that the convictions were based on a fair trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

In each appeal, quash the conviction and order retrial.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Edwards & Ors [2000] QCA 508
PARTIES:	R v EDWARDS, Leslie Arthur (appellant) HEFEREN, Stephen Patrick (appellant) GEORGIOU, Liozos (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 148 of 2000 CA No 159 of 2000 CA No 168 of 2000 SC No 92 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	14 December 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 November 2000
JUDGE:	de Jersey CJ, Williams and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	In each appeal, quash the conviction and order retrial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY - OTHER CASES - all appellants convicted of murder - where certain irregularities occurred in relation to jury - whether trial judge erred in refusing to discharge jury - where one of jurors suffered personal problems during trial and absented himself from the group after jury retired, later returning to continue deliberations – where juror had lengthy conversations with police officers, but there was no evidence that he had discussed the jury’s deliberations with anyone CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE - PARTICULAR MATTERS – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS - DISCHARGE OF JURY – construction of s 53 Jury Act 1995 - whether trial judge applied correct test in determining whether or not to discharge jury - trial judge gave insufficient regard to the perception of prejudice to a fair trial - test is whether the irregularities appeared to give rise to a reasonable suspicion about the fairness of the trial and that includes considering whether the public confidence in the proper administration of criminal justice could be preserved if the convictions were allowed to stand in the light of the irregularities Criminal Code (Qld), s 621, s 622 Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 53, s 54, s 56, s 57 R v Chaouk (1986) VR 707, considered R v Davies (1991) 53 A Crim R 122, considered R v Fielding [1993] 1 Qd R 192, considered R v Jacksonand Le Gros [1995] 1 Qd R 547, considered R v Ketheridge (1915) 1 KB 467, cited Webb and Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, discussed
COUNSEL:	TD Martin SC for appellant Edwards GP Long for appellant Heferen P Callaghan for appellant Georgiou D Meredith for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robertson O’Gorman for appellant Edwards Legal Aid Office (Queensland) for appellant Heferen Legal Aid Office (Queensland) for appellant Georgiou Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent